Talk:Factorial/GA1

I note that nominator appears never to have edited this article. This is not a rule violation, but it is a bit of a red flag for caution that improvements needed to reach GA status may not be forthcoming. Additionally, it means the nominator probably did not conduct an informal review for what improvements might be needed to reach GA and then perform those improvements. In particular, the article has at least three citation needed tags, one dating back to February 2015.

No issues
 * WP:GACR 1 – Prose quality, section order, and words to watch out for.
 * 1) In "Definition", what does "initially for integer" mean, and is it even grammatical?
 * 2) "more generalized": how is this different from "generalized"?
 * 3) Several parts of the article are written in first person (editorial we), unnecessarily; see MOS:WE
 * 4) spelling: "Sitrling"
 * 5) Why the scare quotes in "fills in"?
 * 6) "Factorial at the complex plane": is "at" the best choice of preposition?
 * 7) There are at least two different and disconnected sections on approximations; why?
 * 8) The "Number theory" section is presented as an application of factorials, but it is disconnected from the applications section; why?
 * 9) Why is "Series of reciprocals" a top-level section?
 * 10) Section title "Extension of factorial to non-integer values of argument" is awkward
 * 11) There are many of appear to be unsourced editorializations: "Its most basic occurrence", "view this definition as harmonious", "one wishes to ignore", "It looks approximately linear", "one of the simplest approximations", "plays a key role", "sometimes practical to use weaker but simpler estimates", "The main practical difficulty", "so no reasonable specification...can avoid"
 * WP:GACR 2 – Sourcing
 * 1) This is completely inadequate.
 * 2) There are three stale citation needed tags.
 * 3) The entire "Definition" section is unsourced.
 * 4) Several of the claims in the "Applications" section are unsourced.
 * 5) There is only one reference in the entire "Rate of growth and approximations" section, and it is in a different format (parenthetical style) to the references in the rest of the article.
 * 6) Many of the claims in the "Computation" section are unsourced.
 * 7) The "Number theory" section is entirely unsourced.
 * 8) Most of the "Series of reciprocals" section is unsourced.
 * 9) Almost all of "Extension of factorial to non-integer values of argument" section is unsourced
 * 10) Most subsections of "Factorial-like products and functions" are completely unsourced
 * 11) The sourcing mixes up at least one instance of parenthetical referencing, footnotes with short references to sources listed later, and footnotes with full references.
 * 12) Several book sources are given without any page number; is the reference supposed to be the entire book?
 * 13) Several references use YYYY-MM-DD date formats for the main date of the reference, not an allowed format in that context.
 * 14) The "Sources" section is in Citation Style 2 but many of the footnotes are in Citation Style 1.
 * WP:GACR 3 – Breadth of coverage
 * 1) The history section is inadequate.
 * 2) The combinatorial applications section is inadequate (compare https://oeis.org/A000142)
 * 3) This sequence of numbers is central to mathematical analysis as the coefficients of the power series of the exponential function. This application is completely unmentioned.
 * 4) The section on the Gamma function largely replicates material in the Gamma function article and may be too detailed for its overview here.
 * WP:GACR 4 – Neutral
 * WP:GACR 5 – Stable and uncontentious
 * 1) In "Factorial of zero", it is claimed "it is necessary" to separately define 0!=1, without a source. In fact it is not necessary. One can instead use a more general definition for the empty product, and then define n! as the product of the integers in the range [1,n]. And in fact this has been the subject of recent contention — the last non-vandalism-revert edits to the article, last December, involved some disagreement over this issue.
 * WP:GACR 6 – Illustrations, copyrights, and captions
 * 1) In the illustration for "The gamma and pi functions", what is the question mark supposed to mean? The second sentence of the caption is unnecessarily cryptic.
 * 2) I'm not sure the "Amplitude and phase of factorial of complex argument" diagram is necessary. And I'm not sure any serious sources actually use "the factorial of a complex argument"; they use the Gamma function, which is not exactly the same thing.

Overall, I think the drive-by nomination, stale citation needed tags, huge sourcing issues, and many issues with other GA criteria mean that this is so far from GA that an immediate fail is justified.

No prejudice against renomination after fixing these issues, but I think it's important to take the time to fix them carefully rather than rushing to complete them within this review cycle. And as some of the fixes (particularly the ones for GACR 3) would require some expertise and experience with editing this topic, which the nominator may have but has not demonstrated.

—David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

GACR Fixes
Fixed #1, #4, #5, #6, #10 Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * GACR 1

For #2- I think it is OK to tell "more generalised" since it emphasises the fact that factorials can be applied beyond integers, which is unlikely to think of just by looking at its definition. So, I feel it's correct. Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

For #3 - Yes! But I could not think of any other alternative word (or sentence) to use, to avoid the "we" (or the first person). Can you suggest any other way?

For #7 - The fist approximation is for "large values of integer n ", whereas, the 2nd one is for "large values of integar as well as non-integar n" Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

For #8 - In bullet no.#5 I have added "and number theory (see below)". I hope it looks better now. Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

For #9 - What do you mean by a "top-level section"? I think you mean. If that is the case, then can you suggest a appropriate heading where it can be further put as a sub-heading? Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

For #11 - I mean do we really need "Sources" for that? I think its evident by reading the fact only. I think there is no need for this point. Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I think for many of the points above, the Internal links act as a reference only. Still I (or someone) should try to find out if sources are available in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justlookingforthemoment (talk • contribs) 14:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * GACR 2

Fixed #14

For #3 - I added some references...

For #4 - I think the references are adequate enough.Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

For #7 - The section now contains all the needed citations. Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)